When President Bush described the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as cowardly, he chose precisely the wrong word. (He was not the only person to do so, but he was the most important one to do so.) In fact, it was a very courageous act: for it requires great courage to assassinate someone in the middle of a large and volatile crowd favourable to that person, and above all then to blow yourself up just to make sure that you have succeeded. Not many people have that degree of courage: I certainly dont.

The two Islamic militants whose telephone call was putatively intercepted by the Pakistani security services, and who are claimed by them to have been the organisers of the assassination, were quite right when they called the two men who did it brave boys. They were brave all right; I do not see how it can very well be denied. Even if the transcript of the telephone call turns out to be a complete work of fiction, the authors of it got something right that President Bush got wrong

NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday expressed deep shock over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, saying that the incident is a “reminder” of the common dangers faced in the sub-continent.
“The manner of her going is a reminder of the common dangers that our region faces from cowardly acts of terrorism and of the need to eradicate this dangerous threat,” he said in a statement from Goa.

Is there not something deeply wrong with a culture in which, when mass murder occurs, political leaders and pundits immediately describe it as a “reminder”—as though the most important thing about a monstrous crime is not that it’s a monstrous crime, but that it leads us to a thought process about some other issue? This is the abstract and unreal mind-set of liberalism, which, as we can see, has taken root in India as well as in the West.
Another word that ought to be dropped in these circumstances is “cowardly.” Obviously, there is nothing cowardly about a Muslim being willing to die in the act of killing his enemies, which according to the Koran is the holiest act a Muslim can perform. The recourse to the word “cowardly” is another symptom of liberalism. Liberal politicians don’t want to call the perpetrators of these crimes “enemies” or “evil,” since liberalism prohibits the recognition of the existence of enemies and evil. So they call them “cowardly,” which makes the speaker sound tough and determined, when in fact he is only being absurd.

One of the most characteristic things about liberalism is the moral poverty it inflicts on those who follow it.

* * *
Calling a terrorist act a “reminder” is similar to saying that people are “shocked” by its occurrence—liberals, as I’ve often noted, are constantly being “shocked” by a reality they refuse to recognize. Both phrases suggest that people don’t really believe that terrorism exists, so they require the “reminder” to “shock” them back into the realization that it does. The subtext is: this event forces us once again (for the nth time) to think about this problem that we don’t want to think about, or rather it forces us to declare how important it is for us to think about this problem that we don’t want to think about.

By contrast, a society that actually recognized and was facing the reality of jihadism and terrorism would not speak of a terrorist act as a reminder, because it would already be involved in opposing the jihadists and making war against them. Do you think that when the Japanese sank a U.S. destroyer in the Pacific in 1943, American leaders and journalists said that this was a “reminder” of the fact that we were in a war?”

You might as well call the Columbine and Virginia Tech killers brave, as long as “brave” means “acting without regard to ones own life or safety”, but it means more than that. Bravery is understood as a virtue stemming from moral strength, and not encompassing actions motivated by depravity or recklessness.

I have thought that “dastardly” is a better word for deeds such as these suicidal attacks, and is really what is meant. It is given as a synonym for “cowardly” in Webster’s Collegiate, with the explanation in the synonymy that it “implies behavior that is both cowardly and treacherous or skulking and outrageous”.

Everything I’ve read about terrorist killings includes such things as (1) assassin promised 72 virgins AND assassin promised that if he/she fails, his/her family will be annihilated, or, (2) #1 plus the assassin’s wrists are handcuffed to the steering wheel of the auto/bomb, or, (3) assassin drugged and driven into a suicidal rage by goofball ragheaded perverters of religion.

None of this sounds heroic or brave to me; it all sounds more like the actions of an ignorant, juvenile coward.

Agreed. All this form of attack requires is an acceptance that you are already dead. For a man that has nothing left to loose is then free to perform any atrocity, any savagery, any act to support his “cause”.

The recourse to the word cowardly is another symptom of liberalism. Liberal politicians dont want to call the perpetrators of these crimes enemies or evil, since liberalism prohibits the recognition of the existence of enemies and evil. So they call them cowardly, which makes the speaker sound tough and determined, when in fact he is only being absurd.

Excellent point.

Courage refers strictly to the attitude with which one faces a challenge. It makes no moral judgments about the challenge itself.

This is some of the most vexing, insipid puke I've ever seen in print in the English language in my 66 trips around the sun!!!

This is beyond human comprehension to attibute any possible redeeming social value to assassins and/or homocide bombers! The word assassin speaks for it'self in that it starts with two complete asses and reminds me of this coward loving writer!!!

26
posted on 12/30/2007 9:04:46 PM PST
by SierraWasp
(Too much religion mixed with politics just leads the participants into too much hate & discontent!!!)

Oh, I have an idea that Daylrymple is a harmless, bespectacled academic/English language analyzer with no agenda other than to stretch 500-word articles into 1500 words on what the meaning of "is" is....and in this case, bravery vs. cowardice.

After writing these dull essays, the old coot probably takes long walks in the woods with his walking stick, pipe and dog, wearing his tweed jacket with leather inserts in the elbows.

If you have something to live for, sacrificing yourself is a courageous act. If you have nothing to live for, or worse, you think you will get something better by dying, then killing yourself is selfish.

Bhutto had blood on her hands and $1.5 Billion dollars in the bank allegedly pilfered from the Pakistanis. Supposedly, the assassin missed and she killed herself while ducking for cover after foolishly exposing herself.

Bhutto had blood on her hands and $1.5 Billion dollars in the bank allegedly pilfered from the Pakistanis. Supposedly, the assassin missed and she killed herself while ducking for cover after foolishly exposing herself.

She was no saint, The assassin failed. Karma prevailed.

2 points.

First the Pakistani gov. didn't allow an autopsy. From what the coroner's said she had wounds consistent with a bullet.

Second this isn't a battle of good versus evil per se. It's between the secular and military powers of Pakistan. Neither of which are saints. The Pak military gambled that by engaging in a "decapitation operation" against Bhutto's PPP they could head off any challenges to their rule.

Now that Pakistan is descending into anarchy they don't look too smart. Time will tell.

Now that Pakistan is descending into anarchy they don't look too smart. Time will tell.

We've had worse riots after a bowl games. There is no anarchy. There was no autopsy, and yet you quote a coroner. No one knows what happened, however, she was smiling and waving while standing through the sun roof, so presumably she chose to do it. Hubris killed her one way or another and she was a crook and a daughter of a crook. Good Riddance.

In my view it was neither courage or depravity. No, it was pure greed. The thought of 72 virgins for eternity and adding a big atta boy from the local mullah (for the children), is what pushed these guys to blow themselves up.

I often find myself in agreement with Dalrymple, but not here. To my mind, courage can only be manifest in a selfless and virtuous act; courage is a sacrifice, or a potential sacrifice, so that good may vanquish evil. Assassins and suicide bombers, no matter how reckless, no matter how fanatical is their belief in their evil cause, or their eagerness to die for it, can never be courageous. Their goal is only to inflict misery and fear. A zealot who dies for his cause is not courageous because he doesn’t care whether he lives or dies. A hero wants to live to see a good cause triumph, but is prepared to die to deny evil a victory.

Interesting point to ponder, one that theologians have grappled with for ages...was Jesus’ sacrifice courageous given that he was in the unique position of eternal salvation being a certainty without the need for faith?

It's a long drive between courage and just plain stupid. The enemy isn't in any way courageous. They are brain washed and don't know any better because they've been programmed to NOT think for themselves. A person allowed to think for himself wouldn't buy into that 70 virgins and whatever else they are told from the time they can hear.

Good grief man, Jesus didn’t need salvation. He provided it. He was doing the will of God the Father. It had nothing to do with courage. He asked if “this cup could pass from me....)but he freely and willingly accepted what He came to do. To save our miserable souls. Not His. He always knew what His purpose was in coming to earth. No surprise to Him.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.